Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

KaVir · 09-27-2007, 06:41 PM

No, that's not the point I'm making. In the post of yours that I originally responded to regarding this issue, you stated "I'm saying that we should comment on reality, not the wishful thinking that admin policy often represents."

And what I'm saying is that a mud listing itself as "roleplaying mandatory" can be proven inaccurate by logging on to it and talking about the Simpsons, just as a mud listing itself as "G rated" can be proven inaccurate by logging on to it and talking about adult-oriented subject matter.

In other words, if you really believe that the listings shouldn't reflect admin policy, then by the same line of reasoning muds shouldn't be allowed to list themselves as "roleplaying mandatory", "G rated", "Category: Medieval Fantasy", etc. Because, just like the case of players selling items in secret, none of these things can actually be prevented.

Yes, you can ban someone you catch talking about the Simpsons, or having mudsex - but only if you catch them, and only after the fact. There's no way to ensure that someone else won't have mudsex in front of a newbie next week, and banning them afterwards won't change the fact that they were exposed to adult-oriented material.

Ah, my mistake. But if we're talking specifically about players, then it goes back to the points I made above. If Lasher agrees that basing the listings on mud policies is acceptable, then it's fine to simply ignore transactions that are outside of the muds control. If he doesn't, then obviously the whole listing system will need an overhaul.

If it's an online sale, there'll be records - paypal, credit card, whatever. It's true that a player driving/flying to visit the mud owner with a suitcase full of unmarked bank notes wouldn't leave a trail, but I think we could overlook the possibility of such transactions without overly damaging the reliability of the listings.

Lasher created this thread, and he's more than capable of closing it if he feels it's no longer beneficial. Likewise it's up to Lasher, not you, to decide what the TMS priorities are, and which things are worth implementing.

09-27-2007, 06:41 PM	#487
KaVir Legend Join Date: Apr 2002 Name: Richard Home MUD: God Wars II Posts: 2,052	Re: The Cold Hard Facts No, that's not the point I'm making. In the post of yours that I originally responded to regarding this issue, you stated "I'm saying that we should comment on reality, not the wishful thinking that admin policy often represents." And what I'm saying is that a mud listing itself as "roleplaying mandatory" can be proven inaccurate by logging on to it and talking about the Simpsons, just as a mud listing itself as "G rated" can be proven inaccurate by logging on to it and talking about adult-oriented subject matter. In other words, if you really believe that the listings shouldn't reflect admin policy, then by the same line of reasoning muds shouldn't be allowed to list themselves as "roleplaying mandatory", "G rated", "Category: Medieval Fantasy", etc. Because, just like the case of players selling items in secret, none of these things can actually be prevented. Yes, you can ban someone you catch talking about the Simpsons, or having mudsex - but only if you catch them, and only after the fact. There's no way to ensure that someone else won't have mudsex in front of a newbie next week, and banning them afterwards won't change the fact that they were exposed to adult-oriented material. Ah, my mistake. But if we're talking specifically about players, then it goes back to the points I made above. If Lasher agrees that basing the listings on mud policies is acceptable, then it's fine to simply ignore transactions that are outside of the muds control. If he doesn't, then obviously the whole listing system will need an overhaul. If it's an online sale, there'll be records - paypal, credit card, whatever. It's true that a player driving/flying to visit the mud owner with a suitcase full of unmarked bank notes wouldn't leave a trail, but I think we could overlook the possibility of such transactions without overly damaging the reliability of the listings. Lasher created this thread, and he's more than capable of closing it if he feels it's no longer beneficial. Likewise it's up to Lasher, not you, to decide what the TMS priorities are, and which things are worth implementing.